According to Shah & Lee (2013), a CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x-rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000. This increase in the possibility of a fatal cancer from radiation can be compared to the natural incidence of fatal cancer in the U.S. population, about 1 chance in 5 (equal to 400 chances in 2000). In other words, for any one person the risk of radiation-induced cancer is much smaller than the natural risk of cancer. If you combine the natural risk of a fatal cancer and the estimated risk from a 10 mSv CT scan, the total risk may increase from 400 chances in 2000 to 401 chances in 2000. Nevertheless, this small increase in radiation-associated cancer risk for an individual can become a public health concern if large numbers of people undergo increased numbers of CT screening procedures of uncertain benefit. Since this is unlikely to happen, I believe the risk of cancer to CT screening and exposure is minimal.
Shah, K. H., & Lee, J. (2013). Radiation exposure among patients with the highest CT scan utilization in the emergency department. Emergency Radiology, 20(6), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1142-8.
Thorby-Lister, Nightingale, P., Shaw, N., & Saraff, V. (2018). Full Length Article: Cumulative radiation exposure from medical imaging and associated lifetime cancer risk in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. Bone, 114, 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.06.021
2- alberto alfonso
The effective doses from diagnostic CT procedures are typically estimated to be in the range of 1 to 10 mSv. This range is not much less than the lowest doses of 5 to 20 mSv estimated to have been received by some of the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs. These survivors, who are estimated to have experienced doses slightly larger than those encountered in CT, have demonstrated a small but increased radiation-related excess relative risk for cancer mortality (Meulepasb & Hauptmann, 2016). This is typically an exposure event of a lifetime incidence of 6% to 12%; which means that this exposure is based on a lifetime probability. Persistent exposure to radiation from CT scanning may increase the adverse events of other conditions to a minimal degree relating to cancer.
The risk of developing cancer as a result of exposure to radiation depends on the part of the body exposed, the individual’s age at exposure, and the individual’s gender. For the purpose of radiation protection, a conservative approach that is generally used is to assume that the risk for adverse health effects from cancer is proportional to the amount of radiation dose absorbed and that there is no amount of radiation that is completely without risk (Bayat, Changizi & Mosavi, 2017). Because of these findings, I am inclined to believe that the risk of cancer to patients and staff is minimal.
Bayat, M., Changizi, V., & Mosavi, S. A. (2017). Assessing Chromosomal Abnormalities Caused by Brain CT-Scan Exposure of Children by Molecular and Cytogenetic Methods (QF PCR). Advances in Bioresearch, 8(1), 154. Retrieved from https://www.thecampuscommon.com/library/ezproxy/ticketdemocs.asp?sch=suo&turl=http://search.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=126279680&site=eds-live.
Meulepas, J. M. & Hauptmann, M. (2016). Confounding of the Association between Radiation Exposure from CT Scans and Risk of Leukemia and Brain Tumors by Cancer Susceptibility Syndromes. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 25(1), 114. Retrieved from
Reply Vaccination / autism
. Some of the reasons why parents choose to not vaccinate their children is in their belief that any “immunity” gained from a vaccine is short term only. There are no long term studies that have been done on the effects of vaccination. They also contend that vaccine safety trials are only carried out on healthy babies, children and adults yet once approved, they are given to everyone – healthy or not.
Vaccine safety trials are paid for by the very people who make the vaccines, so there is no possibility of the information being unbiased or truthful. Vaccination is NOT responsible for the decline in infectious diseases. And finally, unvaccinated children are much healthier than vaccinated children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics states that “most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease.” According to Shot@Life, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year, which equates to roughly 285 children saved every hour. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that 732,000 American children were saved from death and 322 million cases of childhood illnesses were prevented between 1994 and 2014 due to vaccination. The measles vaccine has decreased childhood deaths from measles by 74%.
American Academy of Pediatrics, “Vaccine Safety: The Facts,” www.aap.org, 2008.
2- albero alfonso
There are many reasons why parents might be opposed to vaccination. For example, cultural. Some cultures do not view all vaccinations as “necessary” and some believe that vaccinations weaken the immune system. Immunizations and vaccinations are a form of blood pollution because they have devastating effects on the regeneration of the soul that each Church member seeks to attain.” The Universal Family Church believes that parents should decide whether their children should be vaccinated and that “God intends the health decisions of individuals should… be honored by all authorities.”
In my opinion, vaccinations are a primary form of prevention against potentially deadly diseases and are important barriers of diseases in the community. Parents should seriously consider vaccinating their children.
Regan, J. C., & Partridge, L. (2013). Vaccination and infection control: Comparative and Experimental Evidence. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 27(4), 467-479.